El ataque directo al Jefe de Estado enemigo: status jurídico en el ámbito del DICA | Zenodo Skip to main Communities My dashboard Log in Sign up CODESEL Published April 1, 2026 | Version v1 Journal article Open El ataque directo al Jefe de Estado enemigo: status jurídico en el ámbito del DICA Authors/Creators Cosialls Ubach, Andrés Miguel (Researcher) 1 Show affiliations 1.
Centro Universitario de la Defensa - Academia General Militar Description LEGAL REVIEW Cosialls Ubach, Andrés Miguel. “El ataque directo al Jefe de Estado enemigo: status jurídico en el ámbito del DICA.” Boletín CODESEL , vol. 2, no. 8, April 2026, ISSN-e: 3045-7750. The article “The Direct Attack against the Enemy Head of State: Legal Status under International Humanitarian Law” offers a rigorous and conceptually sophisticated contribution to one of the most sensitive and contested issues in contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC): the legality of targeting political leadership in international armed conflicts. Written from a doctrinally grounded yet operationally aware perspective, the study succeeds in bridging classical legal theory with the evolving realities of precision warfare, centralized command structures, and emerging cyber capabilities. At its core, the article advances a clear and defensible thesis: International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not provide absolute immunity to enemy heads of State. Instead, their targetability must be assessed through the structural logic of the principle of distinction, as codified in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I. The author rejects simplistic or symbolic approaches based on the political prominence of the individual and instead situates the analysis within the binary architecture of LOAC—combatants versus civilians—thus restoring doctrinal clarity to a debate often clouded by political rhetoric. One of the most significant strengths of the article lies in its systematic application of Dinstein’s “acid test.” This functional criterion—whether the individual participates in the planning or authorization of military operations—serves as the decisive threshold for determining lawful targetability. The article carefully distinguishes between status-based targeting (applicable to combatants or commanders-in-chief with effective operational authority) and conduct-based targeting (applicable to civilians, including most heads of State, only for such time as they directly participate in hostilities). This distinction is doctrinally sound and aligns with the prevailing interpretations of Sassòli, Melzer, and the ICRC Interpretive Guidance. Particularly noteworthy is the treatment of temporality through the clause “for such time” in Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I. The author convincingly develops a dynamic model of targetability, whereby the legal status of the individual fluctuates depending on their real-time involvement in operational decision-making. This approach reflects both doctrinal orthodoxy and operational necessity, especially in contemporary conflicts characterized by rapid decision cycles and digitally mediated command structures. The article also provides an exceptionally precise analysis of the prohibition of perfidy as an absolute constraint on methods of warfare. Drawing on Hague law, Additional Protocol I, and the Tallinn Manual 2.0, the author delineates the boundary between lawful targeted killing and unlawful treacherous killing. The emphasis on the illegality of operations conducted under false civilian status (e.g., non-uniformed attackers) is particularly relevant, as it reaffirms the reciprocal nature of the principle of distinction—not only for the target but also for the attacker. Another important contribution lies in the clear separation between IHL and International Criminal Law. The article effectively dismantles the common misconception that the personal immunity of heads of State entails protection from military targeting. By distinguishing between susceptibility to attack and susceptibility to prosecution , the author reinforces a fundamental doctrinal principle: legality under the ius in bello operates independently from questions of individual criminal responsibility. Furthermore, the discussion of the “definite military advantage” requirement under Article 52(2) AP I introduces a critical perspective on the doctrine of decapitation warfare . The article does not merely accept its strategic rationale but subjects it to legal scrutiny, highlighting the empirical uncertainty surrounding its effectiveness and its potential incompatibility with the requirement of concrete and direct military advantage. This analytical move is particularly valuable, as it integrates legal reasoning with strategic realism. Finally, the inclusion of accountability as a structural requirement for lawful targeting practices represents a forward-looking contribution. By incorporating Alston’s critique of secrecy and lack of transparency in targeted killing programs, the article extends the analysis beyond formal legality into the domain of enforceability and legitimacy, an area often neglected in doctrinal writings. This article stands as a highly valuable and methodologically robust contribution to contemporary LOAC scholarship. It combines doctrinal precision, analytical depth, and strategic awareness, offering a coherent framework for assessing one of the most complex questions in modern warfare. Its integration of classical legal principles with emerging operational realities makes it particularly relevant for both academic and professional audiences engaged in the study and application of International Humanitarian Law. Files COSIALLS_UBACH_El_ataque_directo_al_Jefe_de_Estado_enemigo_status_juridico_en_el_ambito_del_DICA_CODESEL_Boletin_2026_8.pdf Files (388.9 kB) Name Size Download all COSIALLS_UBACH_El_ataque_directo_al_Jefe_de_Estado_enemigo_status_juridico_en_el_ambito_del_DICA_CODESEL_Boletin_2026_8.pdf md5:03f015b60a479ba071f63f23887313b6 388.9 kB Preview Download 62 Views 23 Downloads Show more details All versions This version Views Total views 62 62 Downloads Total downloads 23 23 Data volume Total data volume 10.1 MB 10.1 MB More info on how stats are collected.... Versions External resources Indexed in OpenAIRE Communities Keywords and subjects Keywords International humanitarian law Military targets Legal doctrine State responsibility Strategic governance Rules of engagement Civilian protection Conflict regulation Security policy War Leadership Decision Making Jurisprudence Military Personnel Ethics Public Policy Accountability Risk Assessment Internationality International law Law of armed conflict Military strategy Defence studies Legal analysis Conflict studies Governance Political leadership EuroSciVoc Armed conflicts MeSH Armed Conflicts Details DOI DOI Badge DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19677765 Markdown [](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19677765) reStructuredText .. image:: https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.19677765.svg :target: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19677765 HTML <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19677765"><img src="https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.19677765.svg" alt="DOI"></a> Image URL https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.19677765.svg Target URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19677765 Resource type Journal article Publisher CODESEL Published in Boletín CODESEL, 2(8), 1-11, ISSN: 3045-7750, 2026. Languages Spanish Rights License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more Citation Export Technical metadata Created April 21, 2026 Modified April 21, 2026 Jump up About About Policies Infrastructure Principles Projects Roadmap Contact Blog Blog Support Help FAQ Developers REST API OAI-PMH Contribute GitHub Donate Funded by Powered by CERN Data Centre & InvenioRDM Status Privacy policy Cookie policy Terms of Use This site uses cookies. Find out more on how we use cookies Accept all cookies Accept only essential cookies